Posted on 07/13/2004 8:07:04 AM PDT by thinkahead
Thanks for this wonderful email from Bill Frist. Making use of it.
I've been trying for over a week to get Sen. Warner's office. I think they leave the phone off the hook.
See post #60. I suspects you are wasting your time.
You would think.....
Congress cannot limit political speech....We should put something in the Constitution about that....
I sure hope you're right about his not running again. We've tried several times to get rid of him to no avail. George Allen's office said initially they were uncommitted but supposedly are now on board.
Warner is unpredictable. Who know, he may show up and vote with us on this one.
That should not read they but he is now on board, of course.
Oh, yes they can, and will.
One can see that happening too: ie, the bill of rights can be used to "interpret" other attempts at Constitutional Legislating.
The problem is that people's MARITAL status and arrangements are NOT delineated as part of the FEDERAL government's realm of authority. Marriage is largely a religious event, and should have NEVER been subject to anything other than religious organizatons. ANY attempt to impose what COULD be interpreted as a religious definition or restriction on marriage, specific to the majority definition in the USA... will eventually go down in flames.
Marriage should have NEVER been subject to definition or defense: of, by or for, the state.
God joins a man and woman together... not the state.
By the time this is over, we will end up LOSING the right to be married under our own religious convictions... as to some degree or another, SOME group in DC will see our "religious" vows as a threat to the sovereignty of the federal or several states.
We need to get government OUT of families, marriage, and education... OR simply surrender to a centralized SOVIET state that dictates every condition, relationship, contract and belief system.
You cannot balance an all powerful state's demands, against the weight of an individual's convictions. Someone in the state will ALWAYS find a way to see that the needs of the many, overrule the choices, freedoms and rights... of the few.
We don't need to give the FEDS permission to interfere with marriage anymore than it already has via the hijacking of civil family law... custody, visitation, alimony and childsupport are now ALL federal matters, under some circumstances. And those "circumstances" are randomly enforced, to direct social policies of the state... the FEDERAL state.
it's wrong to give governmen ONE MORE IOTA of power than it alread has and we need to, in fact, GET RID of it's level of control and influence as quickly and thoroughly as is humanly possible.
It is clearly going too far with the legislation, and attempts at constitutional codification of the majority's belief system on the "heathen" of our nation. Tomorrow, the definition of what is FEDERALLY controlled will certainly be greater than it is today.
WE need a cap on the powers of the nannystate.
Over the past years, I am convinced that is exactly what they do. The number is always busy all day long. So, I called his Richmond office and e-mailed him at his web page e-mail section. Senator Allen's office answered right away and he is voting for it.
I called my Representative, Virgil Goode (R-VA 5th district) at his local office concerning the Federal Marriage Amendment, The Constitution Restoration Act, and the Houses of Worship Political Protection Act and he is on board for all of them. I then got into a discussion about our Senators with his office manager and according to him, Warner will run again. I told him that I was satisfied with Senator Allen, but Senator Warner was to liberal for my taste. the manager is of the opinion that Warner will win hands down every time until he retires.
I guess Senator John Warner is our (Virginians) Arlen Specter. Virginia needs a Rick Santorum type to replace John Warner, just like Pennsylvania needs a Pat Toomey to replace their Arlen Specter.
Did his Richmond office give you any indication of his position?
Nope, she just took my information and thanked me. I now know that I should have asked.... Doh! Oh-wah-tay-dunce-eye-yam!
I called Voinovich and Dewine's cleveland offices today. The responses I got were "Dewine is undecided" and "Voinovich believes in traditional marraige"
I contacted my Senators on Friday because it is my duty. But they are both super-libs who are publicly backing the que_ --uh, I mean "gays".
Marriage has ALWAYS been subject to definition or defense: of, by or for, the state, king, ruler, chieftan, clanleader, etc.
Marriage is not a religious institution, but a social one recoginized and regulated by the rulers/leaders of whatever society you'd care to study.
While every religion has a ceremony celebrating or formalizing 2 individuals participation in the social institution and in some societies the role of governing marriages may in fact be ascribed to religious authorities, but this does not make them the sole purveyors or arbiters of the institution in all societies.
The constitution is going to be ammended, the question is by whom? Us, through our elected leaders and the ballot box, or by an overweening, tyrannical judiciary?
Well, at least that's something we can be thankful for. He doesn't represent the views of the majority of VA's people. I don't know why he kept being re-elected. Mostly because of typical apathy on the part of Christian voters I suppose.
EXACTLY....
wrong that is.
before there can ever be a "state" a "clan" or ANY social order, there has to be marriage, covenant and family.
Were every government on the planet to dissolve overnight, my wife and kids would still be EXACTLY what they are: my wife and kids... because the STATE gains its right to EXIST from ME and MY FAMILY... and NEVER the opposite.
If the existence of the state does not change my family, it follows that the STATE is NOT the arbiter of family relations. Period.
Nice try.
But the idea that STATES are the foundation for, or providers of marital status is clearly wrong.
States have acknowleged marriage because it is a precursor to their existance... and they have ZERO authority to regulate it... for without PEOPLE and their Family Relations that supercede and predate the state... there would be NO state to exist.
Common law marriage is enforceable and acknowledged by the state, in virtually all family law courts because COMMON LAW predates and supercedes our state and local laws regarding marriage. Live with a woman as a male for six months in almost any place on the planet and the familial responsibilities for that relationship are acknowledged and enforced almost EVERY WHERE on the planet.
The constitution of the FEDERAL state will never be allowed to regulate the existance of the very foundational institutions and forms that make it's existance possible.
Only a FOOL would try.
GET the feds out of civil matters, altogether or alternativelyl face certain civil disobedience and irresistable overthrow.
People are tired of government regulating every thing.
Family included.
The religionists will learn this, as they continue to push for a "Christian Nation" to be codified in our national laws.
It will never happen.
We need to get over it and get about the business of changing hearts, instead of continually seeking new means and authorities to FEDERALLY criminalize behaviors we find offensive and disgusting. And I do find homosexual behaviors and relationships extremely disgusting.
States don't marry people.
They do want to get a piece of the pie, and some control when they do however.
WE need less government.
85 percent less...
Sorry. Can't be a factor here. Clinton and Schumer have their minds made up already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.